Even if humans are to blame for, what would seem to be, a rapid-changing climate- do we have the right to think we know enough about it to try and change it back to what it was before?
Consider this:
The environment is a continually changing system and changing it back may do more damage to the current ecosystem than it helps. As species adapt to the new climate that is being established, will we destroy those species in reverting back to what we once knew? Why do humans think they can interpret their actions as destructive when a warming of the earth's surface may have the same chance at making conditions on earth for life better as they do as making them worse?
2007-01-27 09:08:04 · 7 answers · asked by cptbirdman 2 in Environment
We 'meddle' just by existing. So the question really is, do we have the right to exist?
For me, I vote yes!
2007-01-27 09:16:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simply by existing we interact with our environment. At a parochial level, we will do whatever is best for us as a species. In th epast, that has meant cheap energy to fuel growth. In the future, it may mean something different.
Any change will have wimnners and losers. I don't see how we can balance up the whole biosphere to decide what is best. The fact that a species is able to live further North is not a good reson for continuing to use up fossil fuels.
2007-01-27 09:18:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course; did we not, we would all starve. As simple an action as planting a line of beans is technically "meddling with the environment." The trick is to do the meddling in an intelligent way, so as to minimize unnecessary damage.
2007-01-27 09:12:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You asked a very good question here. On the one hand nature will fix the damage done by man but on the other hand it should be fixed before nature does the job because we won't like the process. As to having the right, who can say one way or the other? Do we promote a "good" person to decide or just do it and hope for the best? The moral delema
2007-01-27 09:15:33 · answer #4 · answered by jim m 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Humans (and other species) have always changed the environment for their own ends. Why should we stop?
2007-01-27 09:16:12 · answer #5 · answered by Mention the flag of St David 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we didn't we'd all starve to death, but it's important not to do too much of anything you don't need to, otherwise, our environment could be seriouly destroyed.
2007-01-27 09:21:57 · answer #6 · answered by Sweetness24 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We best make it better by turning it around or we all burn up.
2007-01-27 12:17:24 · answer #7 · answered by Gypsy Gal 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋